Abortion

[Rhea]

Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".

But you use feticide and infanticide.

Why?

 

[Bomb#20]

“Killing” might be less emotive than “murder”, but both are emotionally charged words; Technically you are “killing human life” if you have a mole removed, but to refer to this as “killing” would be ridiculously emotive.

And I think neither killing nor murder applies. Stopping doing something that is keeping something alive is not killing it, it is letting it die. There is a substantive difference between a death resulting from a revocation of "mercy" in unplugging a 'vegetable', and injecting someone with a cocktail that will kill them.

And even then not all killings are unethical.

Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.

The removal is the goal, and the death is secondary to that.

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

 

[Jarhyn]

“Killing” might be less emotive than “murder”, but both are emotionally charged words; Technically you are “killing human life” if you have a mole removed, but to refer to this as “killing” would be ridiculously emotive.

And I think neither killing nor murder applies. Stopping doing something that is keeping something alive is not killing it, it is letting it die. There is a substantive difference between a death resulting from a revocation of "mercy" in unplugging a 'vegetable', and injecting someone with a cocktail that will kill them.

And even then not all killings are unethical.

Abortions are not necessarily "killings" for this reason, though, and we can dispense with the connotations that brings. They DO necessarily lead to a death, but the death is not generally the goal.

The removal is the goal, and the death is secondary to that.

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

As I remind, even then not all killings are unethical.

Killings asked for, for instance by the one being killed.

In some respects this is what delineates whether some thing may be killed or even ought: when the thing is dying and asks you to, and when the thing has been removed from it's environment such that it will die, and lay in a falling problem absent a mind, or which cannot be removed from where it is safely in any other way than to effect it's death in the self defense of the host.

Or, in the case of obligate parasites which have no niche and cause inordinate damage through disease, controlling them and managing them.

But letting something die is generally much less fraught insofar as once something is let to die under its own power, it can and often should be killed, especially if it can think. you don't need to ask consent if something that can feel pain and that is going to die in the order of minutes in a painful way is to be killed.

The assumption, crass as it is, is that we ought always fail faster if we are to fail. I don't really see pregnancy as any different.

Failure here should not be something that is judged against.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.

 

[TomC]

Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".

But you use feticide and infanticide.

Why?

Because those words are much more objective and precise. They're both subsets of homicide.

As opposed, for instance, to the word "murder". There are legal meanings for the word. But they are highly subjective. And the usual meaning, colloquially, is "killings that I disapprove of". I considered the invasion of Iraq a mass murder. The law and most Americans did not.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.

But you still suffer, just not as much. The countries that have legalized it don't seem to have a problem despite occasional misrepresentations by religious people.

 

[Jarhyn]

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.

But you still suffer, just not as much. The countries that have legalized it don't seem to have a problem despite occasional misrepresentations by religious people.

Which is again why things like "killing" hinge on consent.

There are consensual killings, killings done in the course of self defense, and nonconsensual killings.

There are no consensual homicides, though "accidental killings" of humans are accidental homicides.

Killings in the course of self defense are 'justifiable' homicide though I dislike that term. I don't think it's really justified.

Killings done not accidentally and not as the only available recourse in self defense, and without consent are "murders".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.

I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.

I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.

I wasn't there. But her grandson was. I have no clue as to how easy or difficult it was for her. But it was what she wanted, and what she was willing to do to exit gracefully.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.

I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.

I wasn't there. But her grandson was. I have no clue as to how easy or difficult it was for her. But it was what she wanted, and what she was willing to do to exit gracefully.

Death in America is rarely ever simple, and sure the heck isn't humane. Choosing not to eat and drink isn't a path to simple passage.

 

[Toni]

Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".

But you use feticide and infanticide.

Why?

Because those words are much more objective and precise. They're both subsets of homicide.

As opposed, for instance, to the word "murder". There are legal meanings for the word. But they are highly subjective. And the usual meaning, colloquially, is "killings that I disapprove of". I considered the invasion of Iraq a mass murder. The law and most Americans did not.
Tom

I don't understand why you think they are more objective and precise. You don't use either of them in ways that reflect the precision you have assigned to those words but instead to invoke emotion.

 

[Jarhyn]

Two of the words I avoid in this discussion are "person" and "murder".

But you use feticide and infanticide.

Why?

Because those words are much more objective and precise. They're both subsets of homicide.

As opposed, for instance, to the word "murder". There are legal meanings for the word. But they are highly subjective. And the usual meaning, colloquially, is "killings that I disapprove of". I considered the invasion of Iraq a mass murder. The law and most Americans did not.
Tom

I don't understand why you think they are more objective and precise. You don't use either of them in ways that reflect the precision you have assigned to those words but instead to invoke emotion.

And I will again note that neither applies in any right. -icide generally applies to the primary killing of something against it's consent.

Doing something within your rights to do, and something dying as a consequence, is not anything-icide. The word for this is "abortion": to cease doing what one is doing.

Many kinds of abortion do not lead to death.

I can abort feeding a cat, and my friend may take up feeding the cat.

I can abort feeding a fetus, but my friend may not take up feeding said fetus.

It would be unethical to kill the cat simply because I have aborted my care of it.

It would be ethical to kill the fetus at that point because it is impossible for any person to resume care of it and unreasonable to expect the additional efforts and risks associated with even MAYBE resuming care which are moot because they do not even yet exist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.

But you still suffer, just not as much. The countries that have legalized it don't seem to have a problem despite occasional misrepresentations by religious people.

Which is again why things like "killing" hinge on consent.

There are consensual killings, killings done in the course of self defense, and nonconsensual killings.

There are no consensual homicides, though "accidental killings" of humans are accidental homicides.

Killings in the course of self defense are 'justifiable' homicide though I dislike that term. I don't think it's really justified.

Killings done not accidentally and not as the only available recourse in self defense, and without consent are "murders".

You do not know what the term means.

"Homicide" simply means a person was killed by another person. Euthanasia is consensual homicide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.

I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.

When you're already near death it's not nearly as unpleasant as it seems to us. I do agree it's not easy peasy, though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.

I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.

When you're already near death it's not nearly as unpleasant as it seems to us.

I'm talking about the dying part. When a person is near the end, they usually stop eating because they no longer are hungry. Then they stop drinking. Marvin Edwards made it seem like a damned IKEA or Slim Fast for death plan. Don't eat, don't drink and your death will be peaceful. While I haven't seen a lot of people die, I haven't seen anyone die "peacefully" yet.

 

[Jarhyn]

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.

But you still suffer, just not as much. The countries that have legalized it don't seem to have a problem despite occasional misrepresentations by religious people.

Which is again why things like "killing" hinge on consent.

There are consensual killings, killings done in the course of self defense, and nonconsensual killings.

There are no consensual homicides, though "accidental killings" of humans are accidental homicides.

Killings in the course of self defense are 'justifiable' homicide though I dislike that term. I don't think it's really justified.

Killings done not accidentally and not as the only available recourse in self defense, and without consent are "murders".

You do not know what the term means.

"Homicide" simply means a person was killed by another person. Euthanasia is consensual homicide.

I don't accept your usage to the extent you do not accept mine.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You do not know what the term means.

"Homicide" simply means a person was killed by another person. Euthanasia is consensual homicide.

I don't accept your usage to the extent you do not accept mine.

I'm talking the standard dictionary definition. People typically think that "homicide" means unlawful killing, but it actually just means a human killing another human and doesn't say anything about the legality or intent of the act--it's just by far the most common referent is the criminal act. It's like "abortion" actually only refers to the failure of a pregnancy but it's most commonly used to refer to the deliberate termination of a pregnancy that people don't realize it covers more than that--especially since a spontaneous abortion is more often referred to as a miscarriage these days.

Thus euthanasia is a form of homicide. Whether criminal or not depends on the circumstances and the law. When it's done at the request of the patient it's certainly consensual homicide.

 

[Jarhyn]

You do not know what the term means.

"Homicide" simply means a person was killed by another person. Euthanasia is consensual homicide.

I don't accept your usage to the extent you do not accept mine.

I'm talking the standard dictionary definition. People typically think that "homicide" means unlawful killing, but it actually just means a human killing another human and doesn't say anything about the legality or intent of the act--it's just by far the most common referent is the criminal act. It's like "abortion" actually only refers to the failure of a pregnancy but it's most commonly used to refer to the deliberate termination of a pregnancy that people don't realize it covers more than that--especially since a spontaneous abortion is more often referred to as a miscarriage these days.

Thus euthanasia is a form of homicide. Whether criminal or not depends on the circumstances and the law. When it's done at the request of the patient it's certainly consensual homicide.

As I said, I reject your prescriptivism in favor of what the terms are actually used for in common parlance, which is to say "an act of killing attached to significant culpability".

As only killings against consent fall under that banner, that's how I'm going to keep using it.

 

[Toni]

This sort of painfully stretched hairsplitting is why at end of life we are so much kinder to our dogs and cats than we are to our fellow humans. We allow "eu"thanasia, but only provided it's by slow suffocation or by thirst, because it mustn't involve the moral abomination of a syringe of barbiturates.

A woman at our church decided to use that slower routine, where you stop eating for a few days and then stop drinking. According to her grandchildren she died peacefully surrounded by family, and did so on her own terms.

I am just befuddled about how ignorant this statement is. Just don't eat or drink, easy peasy death.

When you're already near death it's not nearly as unpleasant as it seems to us.

I'm talking about the dying part. When a person is near the end, they usually stop eating because they no longer are hungry. Then they stop drinking. Marvin Edwards made it seem like a damned IKEA or Slim Fast for death plan. Don't eat, don't drink and your death will be peaceful. While I haven't seen a lot of people die, I haven't seen anyone die "peacefully" yet.

Morphine really helps with that.

 

[southernhybrid]

I know we are off topic, but I'd like to explain how someone can die peacefully from dehydration, and, I've actually witnessed a very peaceful death. My patient had late stage dementia, and one of the more common ways to die from dementia is dehydration, as the person is no longer able to swallow. In other words, the brain is so damaged that it can no longer activate the swallowing mechanism.

So, when one reaches this point, thirst and hunger are no longer an issue, although it's fine to moisten the lips and mouth with lemon swabs if needed for comfort. When one dies while dehydrated, there is usually no fluid buildup in the lungs, which means there is no acute respiratory distress, aka in lay terms as "the death rattle". My patient was confused but she did smile when some musicians were brought in to sing to her, and she appeared to be comfortable during the entire dying process. She had hospice care.

She didn't even need any morphine, which is often used to depress the respiratory system during the dying process. It's better to have depressed respirations as opposed to rapid, gasping shortness of breath. The other drug which hospice nurses commonly use is atropine. It's used to help dry up the secretions that cause respiratory distress. I've never seen anyone die as peacefully as the woman who died of dehydration, but since I only worked part time, there may have been similar deaths in the facility. Anyone with a short life expectancy was offered hospice care. Nobody ever turned that extra care down.

The saddest death I saw was a man who had no family or friends at his bedside as he transitioned. He was very restless, confused and short of breath. Imo, dying alone makes the process much harder both physically and emotionally.

Hospice nurses are probably the most effective care givers if one is dying and wants the most peaceful death possible. Of course, if we were all permitted to die quickly when the end was near, a lethal injection would probably be easier than transitioning slowly from life to death.

Having written all that, the dying process of a person is totally unrelated to ending a pregnancy.